How did 24-1524 get RAA registration?

[mnewbery]

139 kg allowed for me plus fuel for a O-235 would not get off the ground!

It'll get off the ground no problem because that is the way it was designed. The take off distance required and the landing distance required might be more than you have available, which might be a problem

 

 

[Thunda]

Weight and maintenance is always a good subject.

 

My RV4 is RAA Rego under 19, 600kg MTOW, it was VH registered

 

l still have it LAME maintained.

 

Because the next owner may want to go VH rego, but not only for that reason, it's running an io-320 with light speed ignition, l don't know anything about it, but my LAME has taught me a lot.

 

I now know a heap more about my plane and engine and feel a lot safer, and have a maintainance release to prove it's kept in good nick.

 

But.....

 

If an aircraft was designed and built to carry a passenger and enough fuel to take Jon Johanson around the world

 

( and aerobatic rated ) why should it be down rated because it carries different Rego markings?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

because rules

 

 

[djpacro]

There are more questions than just that?

 

For example, why can you fly it without the same medical as someone flying the same type with VH?

 

 

[facthunter]

The RAAus" certificate" has less "privileges" than the PPL or RPL. It's not the plane so much as the organisation's rules it operates under. IF we want the same privileges as the PPL gives why do a PPL at all? That would be the logical call. In which case is the PPL too difficult or overtrained for?. I wouldn't think so.

 

It's easier to get a RAAus certificate (We all know that) so why would it be equivalent? IF it's the weight of the plane alone that's more of a psychological thing easily trained through. and heavier planes are easier to fly in choppy conditions than (particularly) low wing loaded types that have little penetration. Nev

 

 

[jetjr]

RA has restrictions and exemptions due to these managing risk

 

Low weight and slow stall speed means less inertia, smaller crash

 

Less PAX therefore less risk of passengers injured,

 

No CTA (for std RAA pilot and aircraft), less change of "non participants" getting hit

 

VFR only, same deal

 

Self medical, as above.

 

Self maintinence, as risks of problems are less due to above limitations

 

As RAA plays with these limitations, its likely they wont be available to aircraft and pilots not operating under the limitations,

 

Hopefully wont be removed from all.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"Low weight and slow stall speed means less inertia, smaller crash"

 

BUT

 

If an airframe is made to a Bureaucratic Formula, (95-10 ). IT could & possibly would be too flimsey to hold the pilot in a safe environment, (slower death ! ).

 

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

A very light frame could still be strong, but IF overloaded or not maintained much more likely to be inadequate as time goes on. A weight increase will enable more "normal" materials to be used for a strong frame IF people choose to go that way. This keeps costs of self constructed planes down. More choices with engines etc. Nev